Wait, Why Is Israel Allowed to Have Nukes?(currentaffairs.org) |
Wait, Why Is Israel Allowed to Have Nukes?(currentaffairs.org) |
Strong country can pose any rules what ever they like this is history repeating it self, The US regime has it's racist roots and colonialism run in their blood, seeing millions of Muslims getting killed is what make them happy.
They allow themselves to have the best weapons but not for the people they kill so they can't retaliate this the real answer here.
I always prey for the day that Rome will fall.
> According to our elected leaders, we should be very scared of the possibility that Iran could get a nuclear bomb. But Israel already has them, and ...
For the past 80 years, it's been all-but-guaranteed that you won't win an American election if you seem insufficiently pro-Israel.
Yes, there are plenty of objective arguments for America's foreign policy being far less pro-Israel than it has been for 8+ decades. US Sec. of State (and former US Army General) George Marshall made those arguments to US President Harry Truman back in 1948 - and was overruled. Truman had staked out a pro-Israel position before his previous election (which he had won), then won another election 6 months after overruling Marshall.
- If your real priority is sounding sophisticated, you can make fancy arguments about America being far too pro-Israel.
- If your real priority is understanding why America is so pro-Israel, then you need to shut up with the fancy arguments, and analyze the American electorate's strong preference for that.
- And if your real priority is winning American elections, then you need to present as "obviously" pro-Israel. And ignore the idiots making fancy arguments.
It's impossible to know for sure, of course. I do not trust people's claims about their reasons. If she had somehow taken a position that would attract their votes, I can't know how many votes that position would have lost.
Nonetheless... AIPAC didn't make an endorsement in the last election. I don't think that she could have taken an even-more-pro-Israel position and gotten their endorsement. So it may well be that the only path forward is to hope that the anti-Israel crowd would vote if they were pandered to.
(I'll note that I don't believe that they will. I am quite certain they will find some other reason not to vote. But options are becoming thin on the ground.)
I thought that it was mostly because Israel is backed by evangelists who have a large electorate + lobby from the people with Jewish roots or faith.
Electorate or lobbyist and entrenched power? Losing funding is a way to lose votes, but doesn't imply anything about voter preference.
Of all the conflicts you listed, only India and Pakistan are at nuclear parity, and their body count in all their conflicts is a rounding error compared to the others.
The only thing that would make this constant war stop would be to cut all nations participating in these wars entirely off from the modern world. Revoke any travel permits, and stop any and all goods traveling to/from their borders, including to any nations ignoring such a ban.
The only reason why that's not am option is because of the vested interests of billionaires which procure oil from that area
But if we did, that would actually stop the wars, within a very short period of time. It just can't be done passively like with NK, because China likes to ignore such initiatives
we already support and BACK a theocracy, that considers (palestinian) non jews to be subhuman , to have nukes. You can argue all you want about Israel being a theocracy but their constitution mandates a jewish state. Your religion is on your passport and strongly impacts your quality of life when you're in the regime.
Separately, if Israel nukes Iran, will we be OK with it? Is there anything Israel can do that would make us say "Stop"?
1998 India/Pakistan was a rough year; but every nuclear power has tested their bombs to make sure they work.
There are detection systems that were able to detect sub kiloton explosions in NK from across the world; with triangulation that's quite precise. We would know if Israel has tested.
If they havent tested, they really dont have anything.
Now lets assume they do in fact have some; perhaps smuggled or sourced plans from some other nuclear power.
Why are they allowed to? Well what are you going to do about it? They'll nuke you to keep them.
That's one take.
It's really hard to say what the US has allowed as regards Israel. Locals near a particular nuclear facility can recall an Israeli "team of scientists" mysteriously visiting the facility, a year or so before Israel declared themselves a nuclear power. The assumption is that they "snuck" material out, while US officials were "distracted" - by prior agreement.
I believe the US nuclear-armed Israel directly.
Israel has never declared themselves a nuclear power. They literally have a hebrew word for their refusal to answer questions on the matter.
That's also a very very suspicious story that anonymous locals near an anonymous nuclear facility that supposedly knew about a top secret team of israel scientists...
>I believe the US nuclear-armed Israel directly.
I doubt.
not sure how locals can see "team of scientists" visiting it
Vela Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
Can we for a second, step back and acknowledge who CAUSED the instability in those countries? Iran, off the top of my head, had a secular democratic government until the CIA orchestrated a coup.
Meanwhile, I certainly don't trust a country with nukes that has single handedly spearheaded a genocide that has resulted in the death of over 20 thousand children. Its literally a magnitude order more deaths per year than any other armed conflict. If you want to argue that religious zelots should not be trusted with nukes, I fully agree with you. but lets apply that logic to all countries. not just the ones that "ally" with us.
Even if what you're saying is true, which is a reach imo, that's still not really a good justification to be pro nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
theocracy /θɪˈɒkrəsi/ noun
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.